Paper Example on Truth in Sentencing (TIS)

Introduction

Truth in sentencing is a collection of different public policy stances related to the sentencing of convicted criminals in the federal justice systems. In some contexts, truth in sentencing refers to the terms of the right to know by the public. O'Hear & Wheelock (2015) argued that deceptive sentences like those that a criminal being sentenced to eight years in prison but only serves seven are to right and blinds the public on what is going on in the federal courts. In some instances, movements like the mandatory sentencing link with truth in sentencing where certain crimes yield an automatic sentence despite the extenuating circumstances and the three strikes (habitual offender) where the mandatory and incarceration periods of extensions to convicted persons are handed down by the state law (O'Hear & Wheelock, 2015).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Discretionary parole system and a reduction of time accrual rates are eliminated in the truth in sentencing law that makes the sentencing of criminal offenders just and transparent compared to the previous system that released the offenders to parole before they actually completed their sentence. As a result, the TIS policies aimed at ensuring that the time spent by criminals in prisons is aligned with the sentencing ruled in the judgment. This policy came into place after a long period of philosophy shifts concerning the TIS where the parole officers fell out with the introduction of these policies in the 1970s. Therefore, one of the major aims of sentencing reforms at federal and state levels was the adoption of the TIS in 1990 (Li & Long, 2017).

What Was the Truth-In-Sentencing Incentive Grants Law Designed to Accomplish?

Adoption of the TIS aimed at changing the sentencing to truth sentencing since the courts were not transparent in delivering rulings on criminal offenses. The TIS incentive therefore aimed at restoring a truthful, transparent mode of the sentence where the criminals sentenced would spend the time indicated in the judgment. This, therefore, prevents early release inform of parole systems that released the criminals before their time to the society to do community service. Therefore, the TIS Incentives adopted by the federal and states systems incorporated the parole release after a stiff debate (Harmon, 2016).

At least 85% determinate or a maximum sentence must be met according to the statute (no release to parole). This category is similar to the cornerstone of TIS that sentences offenders to fixed terms and not released until 85% of their sentence is spent in behind bars. Since there is a limitation on the parole policy, this policy limits the good time entitled to offenders. According to the TIS Incentive, the offenders are only released from bars after serving the stipulated time. Therefore, depending on the type of offense, the criminals are released from custody or to community service under supervision depending on the states. Since there were disparity and modification of the TIS policies, it also operated on the parole system that allowed offenders after completing a given percentage of the sentence in custody be released to the parole system. However, in this case, the sentence must be 85% served under custody, fixed or maximum term spent on an indeterminate sentence. In this case, the actual dates for parole or release are discretional to the board of parole (Adelman, 2014).

What Are Other Mandatory Sentencing Movements Truth-In-Sentencing Linked To?

According to Schlanger (2015), other mandatory sentencing movements linked to the TIS policy include policies like habitual offenders law (three strikes law). This law was first implemented in 1994 as part of the antiviolence strategy of the US justice department. This law requires an individual guilty of violent felony with previous record of serious criminal convictions to serve a life sentence of imprisonment. This law aims at increasing the punishment levels to those individuals convicted of more than two criminal offenses that are serious. In the US, 28 states adopted the three strikes policies that refer an individual accused under this law as persistent offenders majorly in Kansas and Connecticut while in Missouri refer this individual as the prior and persistent offender.

Under the three strikes policies, only criminal acts at felony levels qualify to be serious offenses. However, in California, misdemeanor offenses qualify for three strikes law application that has been a controversial subject of discussion in the past. In current mode of sentences, there is a clear indication of three strikes application on individuals accused of felony and have previous conviction records for other serious offenses. This prompts the jury to rule a life imprisonment for such individual that links to the TIS policy that prevents parole release of criminals irrespective of the sentence. The major factor that links these two sentencing policies is the ability to prolong and prevent an immature release of convicts when they have not served their full time in custody (Schlanger, 2015).

How Has the Truth-In-Sentencing Incentive Grant Changed the Way States Sentence Offenders?

The introduction of TIS Incentive grants has changed the way states sentence offenders. Majorly, limited parole incentives and other forms of release before the completion of the sentenced pass this by the federal and state courts are now limited on the criminal's side. Some of the states that have adopted the TIS grand incentives include Arizona, California, Florida, Connecticut, Washington, Virginia, Tennessee and other 20 states. However, the 27 states that adopted the federal TIS grants said that it had no significant effect and was not a factor for the enacted of the TIS law on criminal cases. 12 states said it was not a factor, 11 states saying the influence of the federal grants was a partial factor while 4 states said the effect of the federal grants on the application of the TIS policy was a key factor (Gallant, 2016).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the law passed on the sentencing truth was an important and significant step made by the US Congress in 1994. This has led to a reduction in criminal activities and enhancement of transparency in the court and police systems. This has prevented the release of criminals before completion of their sentence that is an indication of dishonesty to the public. This policy aims at informing the public and entitling them with the right of knowing the sentence given to a particular crime in order to prevent immature release in form of parole.

References

Adelman, L. (2014). The Adverse Impact of Truth-in-Sentencing on Wisconsin's Efforts to deal with Low-Level Drug Offenders. Valparaiso University Law Review, 47(3), 1-19.

Gallant, B. (2016). Bill C-25 The Truth in Sentencing Act: An Examination of the Implementation of Criminal Law by the Canadian Judiciary under Challenging Circumstances(Doctoral dissertation, Universite d'Ottawa/University of Ottawa).

Harmon, M. G. (2016). Opening the door for more: Assessing the impact of sentencing reforms on commitments to prison over time. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(2), 296-320.

Li, Q., & Long, W. (2017). Do parole abolition and Truth-in-Sentencing deter violent crimes in Virginia?. Empirical Economics, 1-19.

O'Hear, M., & Wheelock, D. (2015). Imprisonment inertia and public attitudes toward truth in sentencing. BYU L. Rev., 257.

Schlanger, M. (2015). No Reason to Blame Liberals (or, the Unbearable Lightness of Perversity Arguments); Review of the First Civil Right: How Liberals Built Prison America, by Naomi Murakawa.